BPA has been linked to fertility problems, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, attention deficit disorder and cancer. Scientists at the University of Missouri, led by Cheryl Rosenfeld, found that a constant stream of BPA into the body could result in the chemical sticking around longer than expected.

“When BPA is taken through the food, the active form may remain in the body for a longer period of time than when it is provided through a single treatment, which does not reflect the continuous exposure that occurs in animal and human populations,” Rosenfeld said. “We need to study this further to determine where the ingested BPA becomes concentrated and subsequently released back into the bloodstream to be distributed throughout the body.”

She also considered that the consequences of this could be even more dire:

We know that the active form of BPA binds to our steroid receptors, meaning it can affect estrogen, thyroid and testosterone function. It might also cause genetic mutations. Thus, this chemical can hinder our ability to reproduce and possibly cause behavioral abnormalities that we are just beginning to understand.

BPA is commonly used in the lining of canned food, in plastic bottles, and on cash register receipts, among other applications. The Centers for Disease Control has shown that it is also in the urine of 93 percent of Americans.

I reported a few weeks ago that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently affirmed that BPA in cans leaches into different foods at variable, erratic rates. Another study out this week showed that 95 percent of the BPA in preschoolers’ urine had been taken in through their food sources. This backs up the 2010 report [PDF] by the World Health Organization (WHO) stating that food was by far the primary source of exposure to BPA in humans.

In addition to media coverage on this study, Chemical & Engineering News, the magazine published by the American Chemical Society, has made BPA the focus of this week’s issue.

One article looks closely at the toxicity debate. The growing consensus among consumers is that they don’t want it in their food at any dose, and health advocates point to many of the low-dose studies that increasingly show reason for concern. Meanwhile, the industry–which is producing 12 billion pounds of the chemical every year, with demand rising by five percent annually–doesn’t want to lose their billion-dollar market. The article states that can liner and baby bottle applications represent about five percent of BPA use–meaning that it might make better sense for advocates to organize for partial bans, like the nine states which have made moves to ban the substance in baby bottles.

However, this doesn’t rid us of channels for BPA exposure. In addition to human exposure via other types of food packaging, cashiers who handle receipts and the workers in facilities that use and produce BPA are still at high risk for exposure and illness. The industry also claims it has yet to find truly suitable alternatives. In addition, those that are in use now–like Bisphenol-S–are not necessarily any better for us. Indeed, most of them are also endocrine disruptors with the potential to cause the same set of diseases.

This may leave you wondering what to do to avoid ingesting BPA. One way to minimize your exposure is through a diet of fresh, whole foods, including fruits and vegetables, which has been proven to dramatically decrease the amount of BPA in the bloodstream.

In the meantime, California stands on the edge of voting to pass a BPA ban in the next week. Last month, the State Assembly passed a bill to ban BPA and in the next week, the bill is expected to be heard by the Senate Health Committee, chaired by Dr. Edward P. Hernandez (D-Los Angeles), who abstained from voting on a similar bill that was defeated last session. Based on the overwhelming evidence, let’s hope California makes the right decision this time around.

Chicago is the first city in the nation to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from plastic baby bottles and sippy cups for children under the age of 3. The Chicago City Council voted to approve the ban yesterday, which would be implemented early next year, and Mayor Richard Daley said he will sign the ordinance. “The F.D.A. continues to be recalcitrant and very slow about taking any action on BPA,” said Chicago Alderman Manuel Flores, one of two city officials who proposed the ban last year, after hearing concerns about the potentially harmful effects of the chemical to young children.

Recently, Suffolk County, N.Y. became the first county in the country to impose a similar ban. Late last week, Minnesota became the first state to ban BPA from plastic baby bottles and sippy cups. BPA—a chemical used in polycarbonate plastic, including some baby bottles, cups, sports bottles, food-storage containers and the linings of cans—has potential links to a wide range of serious health effects. For more about the serious health effects, and politics, of BPA, check out these previous Civil Eats posts here and here.

In March, the Suffolk County, New York legislature unanimously passed a bill to ban BPA. That bill was signed into law in April. Federal legislation to ban BPA in all food and beverage containers, the “Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009,” was introduced in Congress on March 20, 2009. The bills, which are identical, are sponsored by Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Six of the largest manufacturers of baby bottles recently decided they will no longer sell bottles made with BPA. In addition, retailers such as Babies ‘R’ Us, Safeway, Target, Toys ‘R’ Us, CVS and Wal-Mart are in the process of or have already phased out selling baby bottles with BPA, and chemical giant Sunoco, acknowledging the safety concerns about BPA, recently announced they would restrict the sales of the controversial chemical in baby bottles and food containers for children under three. Just this week, chemical giant Hexion said it will indefinitely idle a 190 million-lb-per-year BPA plant in Texas due to “continued soft demand for BPA.” (But, in bad news, the company said it is bringing a 310 million-lb-per-year BPA plant back online after it was down for maintenance.) It’s clear that the sea change in bans is impacting production.

Several states, such as California, Connecticut, New York and Michigan are also considering BPA bans. In 2008, the Canadian government banned its use in baby bottles. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Science Board is currently pursuing additional research on the issue.

In August 2008, the FDA reiterated its stance that BPA was safe for humans and has since come under intense criticism from the scientific community including its own Science Advisory Board. At the February 2009 Science Board Hearing, FDA tacitly acknowledged the serious health concerns regarding BPA, but the agency has not yet revised the prior position that no public health safeguards should be implemented at this time.

A study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has shown that 93 percent of Americans excrete some BPA in their urine suggesting that exposure to BPA is likely widespread and ongoing. Moreover, new studies suggest that BPA seems to stays in the body longer than previously believed. Given the existing and growing body of scientific knowledge about the health risks of BPA to consumers, and the growing consumer and industry movement against this chemical, it’s great that Chicago is moving ahead of federal action. But, consumers will remain at risk until federal action is taken. Hopefully, new leadership at FDA will act swiftly to address this important public health concern.